Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

theness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 339 posts

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#241

Post by jeofken »

eej71 wrote: post #99
jeofken wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the death rate of COVID-19 compared to for example common flu for working age people (30s, 40s)?

One perspective to take is this. 1) CDC reports 5101 deaths for the 35-44 years ago group. I assume YTD with "Date" being "recent". https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm 2) My reading of the 2018 (best I found sorry) mortality table for 35-44 age group would put death by covid as the 5th leading cause of death. Just between suicide (7521) and homicide (3304). https://www.cdc.gov/injury/images/lc-c…

Thanks!

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#243

Post by hn_asker »

parsimo2010 wrote: post #21

No, it took years to develop the vaccine. Luckily they started on it before they even knew whether there would be a big payoff. Otherwise we wouldn't have either the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine. I'm generally against pharmaceutical companies charging ridiculous prices for their drugs, but we've benefited from the fact that they use this money to pursue risky research opportunities. If the chance at a big payoff wasn't…

those options don't have to be mutually exclusive

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#244

Post by nojokes »

aidenn0 wrote: post #184
chrononaut wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This was not a good "training pandemic". Was it not though? I assume you'd want a pandemic deadly enough for that convinces a majority of the populace that it's a serious event (to encourage downstream change to better prepare for a worse pandemic), while at the same time not causing people to drop like flies. As you stated, anything less severe would be taken less seriously. To have something to be taken more seri…

MERS (which didn't reach the US) was probably a better "training pandemic" because of the high rate of symptoms early on in the infection. One could take drastic measures to isolate the infected and prevent many deaths.

I would say that it was not, at least not for US because it did not reach it.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#245

Post by winston_smith »

renewiltord wrote: post #112

The problem is one of medical ethics in an unequal society. The problem is that there's a sum of money for which I would have taken the risk and got a vaccine in January and had exposure to the disease in February. Everyone in society would have been better off if I had been permitted that. America could have paid me and 49 others a million dollars each and come out wayyy ahead (since direct exposure tests will yield…

It's great that you care about poor people, but it's also elitist to treat them like they're too poor to afford free will.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#247

Post by chapium »

mrfusion wrote: post #238
jtwaleson wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the death rates in children vs. elderly were reversed with COVID, all hell would have broken loose. There is nothing people are more protective over than their kids. Behavior would have been completely different.

On the other hand the lockdowns were extremely destructive on children. Loss of schools, education, parents losing jobs, domestic violence, suicides.

Honestly, kids are just fine with it. Anecdotally, they are managing far better than adults. Not oblivious to the situation, but far more adaptable to just staying at home.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#248

Post by winston_smith »

mr_toad wrote: post #239
unchocked wrote: post #40

Yes. We need accelerated testing. In the case of a pandemic, we need to make better use of volunteers. I believe that as the history of this one is reckoned with, one of the more interesting moral failures to be acknowledged will be the failure to utilize challenge testing protocols with willing volunteers (give them the vaccine and then deliberately expose them to the virus. It is a calculated risk.) Earlier phases…

> In the case of a pandemic, we need to make better use of volunteers. You’d run the risk of have a non-representative sample and wrongly estimating the effectiveness of the vaccine as well as possibly missing side effects.

1daysooner.org lists almost 40,000 volunteers, and that's without anyone official even asking for them. And you need far fewer subjects in a challenge trial than a normal trial.

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#249

Post by winston_smith »

unchocked wrote: post #155
WalterGR wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need accelerated testing. In the case of a pandemic, we need to make better use of volunteers. How would you attract volunteers for these less-safe clinical trials? Pay them money?

You'd ask. I recall seeing multiple human interest stories about people who were eager to volunteer for challenge trials. I believe challenge trials are how the original vaccines were tested in the earlier 20th century prior to contemporary developments in medical ethics. And you'll get volunteers. It's a rational decision for effective altruism. Say you face a 1% chance of death but a 50% chance of substantially con…

1daysooner.org lists almost 40,000

Re: It took two days to develop Moderna’s vaccine

#250

Post by hnracer »

pjscott wrote: post #138
renewiltord wrote: post #112

The problem is one of medical ethics in an unequal society. The problem is that there's a sum of money for which I would have taken the risk and got a vaccine in January and had exposure to the disease in February. Everyone in society would have been better off if I had been permitted that. America could have paid me and 49 others a million dollars each and come out wayyy ahead (since direct exposure tests will yield…

A few workarounds spring to mind: 1. Run challenge trials, but don't pay participants in money. Talk up the danger and risk, and publicize the heroism of the people who volunteer. Make a spectacle of it. If you ask for fifty heroes, is there any doubt that you'd get them? 2. Pay participants, but impose a minimum price they need to be paid in order to assuage people's squeamishness. That hypothetical guy in sub-Sahar…

Or 3. only recruit people who earn over X dollars.

Any of these are good solutions.

Post reply on HN